Template talk:Restricted use

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Restricted use has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

This template or project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, a project that aims to improve and monitor fair use on Wikipedia and prevent gratuitous copyright infringement. If you would like to help, please see the project page for more information.

Guanaco! Get the sloppy looking ":" out of the fair use msg!

JediMaster16 19:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why bold?

Why is the link to fair use bolded in the template message? That does not seem correct wrt the Manual of Style, since the articles it appears in are not about fair use. —siro χ o 08:06, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I wasn't sure why this page was protected, and there was a request for unprotection, so I unprotected it. Pcb21| Pete 09:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was some disagreement about overly "pretty" templates in the last day or two, so that may have been the reason. Some complaints about fancy colors and such. Speculation, though. Jamesday 13:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who claims fair use

172 asked me to take a look, so I clarified who is claiming fair use. It's not the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia. It's the individuals who upload the image and place it into the first article and those who place it into subsequent articles. Those are the people responsible under US law - the Wikimedia Foundation is protected by the Communications Decency Act and Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. The previous text could conceivably have given someone the mistaken impression that the Wikimedia Foundation was giving an opinion of some sort about the uses. It isn't. Jamesday 13:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

The current version is ungrammatical and awkwardly written. I prefer the previous version to which the text had evolved:

This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work, along with anyone who uses it in an article, asserts that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law.

Any objections or suggestions for further improvement? --Michael Snow 22:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, 172 has been systematically attacking my changes recently. I'm not sure why. I'm changing it back, there was no reason to revert. — マイケル ₪ 01:43, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

172 was correct to change your version. A requirement for fair use is the context: the way in which is is used. If you simply upload an image, it's probably not fair use because there is no context other than the image decription page. What's required is both the upload AND placing the image in the first article to use it. Hence, the wording needs to combine both upload and first use. Your rewording eliminated that and incorrectly isolated uploading from the use required to make a fair use case. Jamesday 17:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just trying to fix the grammatical problem that existed in the version he reverted it to...The current version is acceptable. — マイケル ₪ 17:53, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I might argue that an image description page can be fair use by itself. It's simply an intermediate use that facilitates the fair use of the image in appropriate articles. (Incidentally, do we allow image description pages to be picked up by search engines?)

I think the suggestion that context is required misunderstands fair use analysis. You can definitely say that the context of the use is a consideration in deciding whether something is fair use. But putting the copied work into some additional context (i.e. transforming the nature of the work) is only part of the first factor of fair use analysis, focused on the purpose and character of the use. It is not a requirement. For example, a schoolteacher might be allowed to copy a magazine article for classroom use, without adding any more "context" to it, and still have this be considered fair use.

Though it may not be terribly common, I would think we must have some fair use images where the original uploader never placed the image in an article, but let other people do that. The logical consequence of Jamesday's argument is that this is illegal. But nevertheless, I find the current wording acceptable as well, since it may discourage people from uploading supposedly fair use images without a good idea of what article they might be fair use in. --Michael Snow 20:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's possible to argue that an image description page can be fair use or to upload an image knowing that someone else is going to use it. Transformative and preamble purpose use are excellent tools to help a commercial reuser with the first factor and the prospect of those is significantly enhanced if an article is involved. I don't see any sign of images being blocked from search engines, though I didn't find the description page for the en Wikipedia version of an image I uploaded, while the image itself is in Googles's image search on page 5 because of the article which includes it. Jamesday 07:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Older fairuse: may or may not have copyright

The template asserts "This work is copyrighted". I've had it added to a number of images I uploaded a while back of things like scans of old record labels that are post 1923 where I originally stated something like "presumed fair use" for article on that subject. The image is not old enough to qualify as safe harbor public domain, but they may or may not be copyrighted. When the image is some commercial art for a company that went under in the Great Depression, it is often as likely as not that no copyright was ever renewed, but to determine exactly requires case-by-case research. Perhaps we could have a seperate template for such numerous images, saying something like "This work may be copyrighted"? Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 18:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saying that "This work is copyrighted" is more a warning to alert people than a determination of the work's legal status. We probably have this template on an image or two that is not actually protected by copyright anymore. I don't see any significant harm in this, but a different and slightly reworded template could also serve the purpose for images that are likely, but not definitively, in the public domain. --Michael Snow 20:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I created a modified version for such cases at Template:Fairold. Feedback welcome. -- Infrogmation 01:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ©

This should be in this template:

Please unprotect. Oven Fresh 19:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Copyrights redirects to Copyright. I assume the link in the template should be adjusted. — Asbestos | Talk 17:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright image?

I'm thinking of a copyright image (shown right). Do you have any plans?

[edit] Changes

I've modified the template to hopefully improve the style and make its status more evident. Sarge Baldy 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fix markup

The template is missing </td></table> at the end of the explanatory text, resulting in problems for any pages this is transcluded onto. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 01:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] missing table end tag

I think </table> should be included in this template. Because when a table is created in a page below {{fairuse}}, i gets messed up. Check this page --Oblivious 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Done Sarge Baldy 03:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use

Just thought I would put a note here; for those interested in fixing up Wikipedia's fair use policy, including rewriting the image tags, there is a group of people working on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. All interested parties are welcome! --Fastfission 00:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fix code

This little table has problems with the new image metada table. It's difficult to explain, see Image:Michelle Bachelet promo.jpg. —Cantus…☎ 14:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to article

This template (and also {{Logo}}) should be modified require listing the article (or articles) in which the image is to be used as fair use. Kelly Martin 15:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image caption

The image caption of the © logo is currently "Copyright undetermined". This is wrong. It should say "Copyrighted" or something of that nature. A fair use claim means that the work is copyrighted but that, on the basis of its usage being "fair", it is not copyright infringement. However this does not affect the fact that the work is still copyrighted. --Fastfission 15:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar fix needed

..."please swap this image with the free version, and nominate it for deletion."

Nominate the first image for deletion, or the free version? I'm taking a class in college on how to write effectively, and I learned that this is an example of a grammatical 'dangling modifier'. Could you please change this to the following?

..."please swap this image with the free version, and nominate this image for deletion."

Denelson 83 05:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Change deletion message

Currently this says:

If you can find a suitable alternative image that adequately transports the same information as this image and is under a free licence, please swap this image with the free version, and nominate this image for deletion.

I propose changing it to:

This may be easier than expecting somebody to go through the IFD process. Although, I'm sure somebody could think of better wording, then mine. --Rob 06:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Done Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to retire?

I've proposed removing this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Retiring the "fairuse" template, looking for reactions. Stan 21:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ifdef

Can the calls to {{ifdef}} be removed; unless I'm missing something I believe they're unnecessary. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you missed one. :( This:

{{ifdef|Image:New image file name|<tt>&#124;</tt>Image:New image file name<small>&#160;</small>}}

Should work as:

<tt>&#124;</tt>Image:New image file name<small>&#160;</small>

Basically since the ifdef always evaluates to true, we're removing it and leaving the text it would display intact). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Woops. Done. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

[edit] Vietnamese

Please add a link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Sử dụng hợp lý]]

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language.

[[sr:Шаблон:Поштена употреба]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danish

And for Danish please:

[[da:Skabelon:Billede FairUse]]

Thank you. --|EPO| 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done: All. -- Netsnipe ► 13:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian

Please add ru-wiki

[[ru:Шаблон:Fairuse]]

--Alex Spade 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit

See Template:Restricted use/Proposed. For consistency with other fair use templates. Peter O. (Talk) 12:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Netsnipe ► 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So guys, you just emptied out Category:Fair use images, which is where all the old crappy "fair use" images were sitting, conveniently to find for scrubbing out, and moved them all to Category:Fair use in... images, which is supposed to only be for images that legitimately mention their intended usage. See Image:2004gopconventionhawaii.jpg for example, which is now wrongly classified. Stan 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To replace Category:Fair use in... images with Category:Fair use images in accordance with the above complaint. -- Peter O. (Talk) 10:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Netsnipe ► 15:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Now back to emptying out the category the slow and painstaking way... :-) Stan 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

please put the interwiki link into noinclude tags. thanks TZM^{Everything is notable} 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Konstable 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The word "may" should be changed to "might"

Because the word "may" can and is used to mean giving permission, which would be wrong in this context, it should be changed to "might" to unambiguously convey that copyright infringement is a possibility if X is used outside the fair use claim. I am going through and lazily making this same change to all of the non-protected copyright-esque templates, let me know here if anyone disagrees. zen apprentice T 20:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There are actually a half-dozen or so protected templates that use "may" where "might" is more appropriate, if an admin agrees with the above change to this article can they also please make the same change to all the other fair use-esque templates? Thx. zen apprentice T 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the form may is right. If you don't mind, I won't change these. If you don't agree, please contact other admins. Thank you for your appreciation. NCurs e _work 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki for Interlingua

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki:

[[ia:Patrono:Fair-use]]

Thank you in advance, Julian Mendez 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Done —Mets501 (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Where it says

To the uploader: Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

I think it should be changed to

To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale.

to reflect the {{fairusein}} template. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Cbrown1023 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request: change category to Category:Fair use tag needs updating

I work a lot with images in Category:Fair use images. I would appreciate it if there were only categories in that category; would an administrator change:

<includeonly>[[Category:Fair use images|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly><noinclude></noinclude>

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|[[Category:Fair use tag needs updating|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

I derived the name from the commons category commons:Category:PD tag needs updating (replacing "PD" with "Fair use"). If you or anyone else can think of a more appropriate name, please do. Thank you. --Iamunknown 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would comment here. Is there some particular reason why the category should only contain categories? Has this change been discussed anywhere else? CMummert · talk 14:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The images are supposed to be in either Category:Fair use in... images for the general case or some more specific category in specific cases. This template isn't supposed to be used any more (either {{fairusein}} or a specific tag should be used), so the change seems sensible. I'm just about to do it. --ais523 11:43, 1 April 2007 (U T C)

Done --ais523 11:48, 1 April 2007 (U T C)

Thanks, folks. CMummert, I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier, I didn't see your message on my watchlist. The particular reason why the category should only contain categories is, I guess, personal preference. I often deal with images and categories in the Category:Images by copyright status tree and thought it would be nice to have Category:Fair use images to be used only for categories of said fair use images. If, however, my edit request was inappropriate, I would not object to a revert. --Iamunknown 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/s/Template_talk%7ERestricted_use_58a2.html"